arXiv:2608. 19861v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Customer-service LLM agents must follow organizational policy when acting on a user's behalf.
arXiv:2606. 29225v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: LLM agents handle user requests on behalf of organizations through tool calls and must follow the company policies stated in their system prompts.
arXiv:2607. 07097v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Safety evaluations of multi-agent LLM systems often compare a direct prompt with a planner-executor pipeline and report the difference as a single "pipeline effect.
arXiv:2609.25686v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Long-horizon assigned work requires an LLM agent to track the state of a task: which steps are done, blocked, cancelled, or open to repetition. Agent...
The paper proposes a split‑control architecture for adaptive security at the network edge, where an untrusted planner emits typed security intents that are vetted by a deterministic governor before being enacted. The governor checks each intent against safety, resource, temporal‑stability, and proportionality invariants, issuing signed receipts for admitted actions that are compiled into eBPF map updates. Experiments on a Raspberry Pi 5 connected to a university 5G test network show the governor can admit, reject, and bound intents at microsecond cost without disrupting protected‑flow regularity.
arXiv:2610.01756v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Decentralized agent economies increasingly build a single task from protocols that were designed and secured separately. This creates a simple proble...
ActGov is a runtime enforcement framework that validates each action proposed by a large language model (LLM) agent before it interacts with external tools, ensuring that actions stay within task‑scoped authorization boundaries and comply with dynamically constructed policies. It builds policies from tool specifications, benign tasks, and failure traces, verifying updates via SMT‑based counterexample checking. In evaluations on AgentDojo and AgentDyn benchmarks, ActGov consistently reduces indirect prompt‑injection attack success while maintaining task utility, outperforming existing defenses.
arXiv:2606. 12320v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Enterprise security was built to govern data boundaries: the protected surface was data at rest and in transit, and the controls -- access control, data-loss prevention, perimeter inspection -- governed crossings of that boundary.
arXiv:2608. 16402v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language model-based agentic frameworks primarily optimize capability: whether an agent can reason, retrieve information, call tools, delegate work, and complete a goal.
The paper introduces Runtime Assurance Contracts (RAC) as a formal policy framework for high‑risk AI agents, addressing the "assurance‑transition gap" by binding autonomy boundaries, component eligibility, evidence state, transition policy, human‑review capacity, and non‑compensatory gates. RAC allows soft metrics to influence routing while mandating retries, switches, escalations, deferrals, or stops when mandatory gates fail or are unknown, ensuring aggregate performance cannot alone authorize action. The authors define the contract, evidence record, permission rule, and five invariants, and evaluate RAC through deterministic failure‑injection studies, hand‑authored traces, and a prospective synthetic holdout, comparing it to score‑only and restricted protocol baselines.
arXiv:2606. 06460v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Autonomous LLM agents increasingly hold real credentials and operate infrastructure with no human in the loop, yet operators have no standard way to tell an agent a resource is off-limits, or to ask a running agent to stand down: access controls either admit it or hard-fail it.
arXiv:2607. 10487v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: LLM agents can commit durable effects from authority evidence that was valid earlier in execution: a DOM snapshot, approval epoch, version witness, branch token, or worker result.
ClawSentry is an open‑source, framework‑agnostic security supervision gateway designed to protect autonomous large language model (LLM) agents from progressive risks that can arise at four points in the agent control loop: skill admission, invocation‑time intent, execution‑time effect, and post‑action consequence. It introduces a multi‑tier decision engine—deterministic L1, rule‑anchored L2, and read‑only L3—alongside a First‑Use Skill Package Review (FSPR) and an Agent Harness Protocol (AHP) that applies a single policy across multiple agent runtimes without modifying their internals. Evaluation on SkillInject and the SkillsSafety benchmark shows that ClawSentry significantly reduces contextual adversarial skill risk (ASR) while maintaining high task success rates (TSR).